Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘How the IPCC forgot to mention the pause’ — Why? ‘attributed the oversight to a tendency of each group working on each of the 14 chapters to rely on some other chapter to deal with the issue. And anyone who was thinking about it at all thought some other chapter should handle the issue.’ Curry responds: ‘How did they miss the fact that the pause is the most important issue in the public debate on climate science, for well over a year now?’Roger Pielke Jr. on IPCC: ‘There is a big difference between saying ‘we don’t know, emerging area of research” and ‘nothing to see here, move along’

‘The Scientization of Politics’: ‘Michael Mann was advancing a sweeping, revolutionary political program aimed at creating a ‘carbon-free economy.’ — Finally Mann declared that “politicians across the political spectrum have to come together to solve this problem that threatens us all.” And it was immediately clear that this was a political programme. Something is “political” if it is ”related to the government or the public affairs of a country.” And Michael Mann was advancing a sweeping, revolutionary political programme aimed at creating a “carbon-free economy.” An entire 200-year-old global industrial civilisation, built on coal and oil and gas, was to be completely swept away. Lenin would have gasped at the prodigious scale of it, and Trotsky would have fainted. And he was calling for all this on the basis of a few computer models and some temperature measurements.

Report: There is no 97 percent global warming consensus — ‘The consensus as described by Cook et al. is virtually meaningless’ — Andrew Montford points out that there are two possible ways one can view of the “consensus” around manmade global warming. One is “shallow” view that human activity caused some unspecified extent. The other is the “deep” view that human activity is the main driver behind global warming. According to Montford, the Cook paper takes the “shallow” view because his study counted a paper as endorsing the “consensus” if it accepted the concept of anthropogenic global warming, either implicitly or explicitly, regardless of whether it quantified the extent of human influence on the planet’s temperature.”

Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt: ‘Scientific consensus fetishism in climate politics’: Rancourt: ‘I am baffled that any trained scientist with some knowledge of field measurements (i.e., measurements in the field), Earth systems, and statistical analysis could be “convinced by the evidence” that “anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century”. Especially in the further light of recent analyses of the failures of all climate models regarding the “non-warming” of the last 20 years [11]. This week’s hot air from the IPCC changes none of this.’